POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

How to beat any non-POFA PCN at POPLA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6338863/smart-parking-pcn-ammanford-popla-appeal-won/p1

Thanks to @noisyparker for the worked example.

Works for any. BPA parking firm who don't use the POFA (and that's not just about the PCN not arriving by day 14...there is the small matter of non-POFA wording, too).

Includes at the time of writing this:

- SMART PARKING 
- HIGHVIEW
- HORIZON
- CP PLUS
- APCOA

columboboy

Successful POPLA appeal using the recourses here. Just used the Newbies thread and tailored to my needs.
I can post the full process if anyone wants on a new thread.
Location - Cambridge, Queen Anne House YMCA 
ParkingEye ANPR

POPLA assessment and decision 01/03/2022

Verification Code **********

Decision - Successful

Assessor Name - Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to the vehicle not gaining the appropriate

permit/authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has provided documentation supporting their appeal and the issues they have raised. The

appellant lists the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made

when reviewing this information. The appellant states that:

• There is no evidence of parking.

• A grace period has not been considered.
• The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

• The operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice, as no evidence of Landowner Authority has been provided.
• The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

• Inadequate Signage / Misleading Signage

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the

terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA

of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not

indeed comply with these terms and conditions.

I have to assess the appeal on the reason that the PCN was issued.
The operator has issued the PCN, as the appellant did not obtain a valid permit to park at the site. The appellant has highlighted though that as part of the appeal, that they do not believe the operator has land owner authority to issue parking charges. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a code of practice, which sets the standards for its parking operators. As the appellant has questioned that the operator has landowner authority, I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. As the appellant has referred to as part of their grounds for appeal, section 7.1 of the code of practice outlines to operators that they must have the written authorisation of the landowner, or their appointed agent, in order to manage the site. The written confirmation must be given before operators can start operating on the land in question and give authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that the operator is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires operators to keep to the Code of Practice and that authority is permitted to pursue outstanding parking charges.

The operator has provided a contract to show landowner authority, stating the start date of the contract is 6 September 2016 and is effective for 24 months. This means the contract would have expired in 2018 however, there is no mention within he agreement of the contract being on an automatic renewal. I am aware that section 23.16B of the code of practice states that witness statements are introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within an independent appeal evidence pack and as such these statements must be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent, and not by a member of the operator’s staff.

I acknowledge that the agreement provided does state the terms of the contract and the name of the site are outlined however, the contract does not state of the contract is on a rolling agreement and what action must be taken following the expiration of the 24 months.

In the absence of such information, I cannot determine if the operator had an agreement in place around the date of contravention. As such, I cannot be sure if this contract meets the requirements set out in the BPA code of practice, and if the appellant was parked on the operator’s land. As I cannot establish that the operator has sufficient authority, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.
Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

ParkingFred

POPLA appeal successful!

Success against NCP at a railway station car park.

Used the templates on the newbies thread.

They withdrew with an interesting reason…

‘Withdrawal reasons

Due to our current circumstances working from home we are unable to complete our evidence pack at this time therefore we withdraw this appeal.’

Seems to suggest that any appeal would be successful!

Umkomaas

ParkingFred said:

POPLA appeal successful!

Success against NCP at a railway station car park.

Used the templates on the newbies thread.

They withdrew with an interesting reason…

‘Withdrawal reasons

Due to our current circumstances working from home we are unable to complete our evidence pack at this time therefore we withdraw this appeal.’

Seems to suggest that any appeal would be successful!

Well done. I thought home working was at an end!  Nonetheless, good win. 👏

Fortyniner_2

PoPLA appeal successful !

Operator Name : Civil Enforcement - EW

Location : Londis, Blaenau Festiniog

Assessor Name : Andy Prescott

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for breaching the condition of 90 minutes maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that they were using onsite laundry facilities and that the wash cycle exceeds 90 minutes. The appellant states the operator has not applied a Grace Period as per the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They advise they only exceeded the maximum stay by just over 4 minutes. The appellant has provided evidence of their purchases (including use of the laundry facilities) in support of their grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the appellant has stated the event in question should have been covered by a Grace Period. The signs of the site advise: “90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY” and the evidence shows the appellant was on site for 94 minutes. In the BPA code of practice paragraph 13.3 states: “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted…a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. Having reviewed the operator’s case file, and their statement that they: “do not offer a grace period as we already agreed to 90 minutes of free parking”, I must state this is at odds with the clear direction of the BPA code of practice. As such I am satisfied the appellant did leave within an applicable Grace Period, but I am not satisfied this PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

I found the comment about it being at odds with the clear direction of the BPA code of practice interesting especially as the operator stated that they "do not offer a grace period as they already agreed to 90 minutes of free parking".  I wonder how many others they have charged for being on site for just over the allowable parking time?

Umkomaas

Fortyniner_2 said:

PoPLA appeal successful !

Operator Name : Civil Enforcement - EW

Location : Londis, Blaenau Festiniog

Assessor Name : Andy Prescott

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for breaching the condition of 90 minutes maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that they were using onsite laundry facilities and that the wash cycle exceeds 90 minutes. The appellant states the operator has not applied a Grace Period as per the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They advise they only exceeded the maximum stay by just over 4 minutes. The appellant has provided evidence of their purchases (including use of the laundry facilities) in support of their grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the appellant has stated the event in question should have been covered by a Grace Period. The signs of the site advise: “90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY” and the evidence shows the appellant was on site for 94 minutes. In the BPA code of practice paragraph 13.3 states: “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted…a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. Having reviewed the operator’s case file, and their statement that they: “do not offer a grace period as we already agreed to 90 minutes of free parking”, I must state this is at odds with the clear direction of the BPA code of practice. As such I am satisfied the appellant did leave within an applicable Grace Period, but I am not satisfied this PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

I found the comment about it being at odds with the clear direction of the BPA code of practice interesting especially as the operator stated that they "do not offer a grace period as they already agreed to 90 minutes of free parking".  I wonder how many others they have charged for being on site for just over the allowable parking time?

In which case they had no reasonable cause to access your data from the DVLA, thereby breaching their KADOE agreement with the DVLA. Complain about this initially to the DVLA, thereafter seriously consider suing for a GDPR/DPA breach. 

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk 

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 

Send identical email complaints to each. 

Thereafter:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

Motorists shouldn't just feel relieved they've simply got the PPC off their backs. PPCs must learn the only way they do - by being hit in the pocket. The motorist above hit CEL for £900. Nice little earner. Just send a free-to-issue Letter of Claim, then see what happens ... light the blue touch paper!

sarahiscross

I am just about to issue my POPLA appeal and have gone through the points with a fine tooth comb (double checking all the legal references). One error I had to correct was that the BPA code of practice reference citing 'reasonable cause' is 21.14 not 20.14 so template needs amending.

Thanks to everyone for all this vital information - i will let you know how it goes.

stanyewest

Success against APCOA for Heathrow drop off fee. 

My original appeal against APCOA was rejected using their standard template so I appealed to POPLA using all of the reasons set out in the newbies thread. 

Just had the below confirmation from POPLA that the appeal has been withdrawn. Strange turn of phrase as it was my appeal but based on the text it looks like APCOA have cancelled the charge. Thanks for all your help!!

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your xu in SMB appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Aza83

Operator Name : Euro Car Parks - EW

Location : West Street car park, Newbury, Berkshire

Assessor Name : Naomi Littler

Decision : Successful (booyah!)

Decision date : 15/03/2022

Appeal Verification Code : 2410212396

Assessor summary of operator case : The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display/ permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case : The appellant’s case is that The appellant has provided a detailed document outlining their appeal. In summary their grounds of appeal are as follows: They state that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice regarding grace periods. They state that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. They state the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. They state that the operator has not provided evidence that they have the required landowner authority. They state that there is no evidence of the period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They state that the vehicle images within the PCN do not comply with the BPA code of practice. They state the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is neither reliable nor accurate. They state the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. No planning permission from Redcar & Cleveland borough council for pole-mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage After reviewing the operators evidence pack the appellant has provided some additional comments to reiterate their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision : 

By parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the land. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions and the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the amount of the charge as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge does not reflect the loss to the landowner and is therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. For the reasons stated above, I cannot determine that the appellant has agreed to pay this fee for breaching the terms and conditions. Consequently, I cannot consider that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I must allow this appeal.

Thank you for all of the information in this forum, and the invaluable advice I've received from the kind people willing to give up their time to help others. I'm hoping to help other people parking in Newbury, and have signposted this wonderful resource.

Umkomaas

Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis.

Well, that's a very nice decision as ECP have pretty standard signage across the country. This outcome should be quoted in every ECP POPLA appeal as it's first appeal point, with the name of the Assessor (Naomi Littler) and the POPLA Decision reference number (not known at time of posting, but if @Aza83 could quote it here please, that will be so helpful). 

@Aza83 very well done!

Here is the POPLA Appeal with photos of the ECP signage that found disfavour with Assessor Naomi with which future ECP appellants can compare their own photos of signage.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LkX8CdGCZNd-LuU2hNS_ey6JFOj9Jh6o/view